Search

The woefully low proportion of scientists and clinicians underrepresented in medicine (UIM), including members of African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander communities, is well characterized and documented. Diversity in medicine is not only just, but it improves quality and outcomes. Yet, diversity in academic medicine remains stagnant, despite national recognition and urgent calls to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion across health sciences. One strategy that has shown to improve diversity in many sectors is high quality mentoring. While many institutions have adopted mentoring programs, there remains a lack of mentorship that is equitable, individualized, and sets a clear timeline for academic milestones that will position UIM mentees at the optimal trajectory for promotion and retention. A barrier to assembling these programs is the small number of UIM among the senior faculty ranks who are able to serve in this role, given the disproportionate burden to serve on a multitude of academic committees, task forces, and workgroups to fulfill institutional mandates to diversify representation. These time-consuming services, documented in the literature as the “minority tax,” are generally uncompensated and unaccounted for in terms of consideration for promotion, leadership positions, and other measures of career advancement. The Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Academic Mentors (JAM) Council represents a novel, culturally responsive, and anti-racist approach to achieve a more equitable and inclusive institutional environment. This approach strategically leverages the intergenerational wisdom and experience of senior UIM faculty via time-protected effort with the overall goals of improving rates of promotion, retention, and career satisfaction of early career UIM colleagues. This community case study describes the rationale, resources needed, processes, and proposed workflow required to launch the JAM Council, as well as the major roles and responsibilities for JAM mentors and mentees, which may be considered by academic medical centers focused on improving diversity among the faculty ranks.

Objective Current guidelines recommend initiation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis within 72 hours of spinal cord injury (SCI). This study investigated the safety and efficacy of chemoprophylaxis within 24 hours of surgery for SCI. Methods A retrospective review of 97 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for acute traumatic SCI at a single level 1 trauma center from 2013–2018 was performed. VTE/postoperative bleeding rates during hospitalization, demographics, medical/surgical complications, drain output, length of stay, and disposition were obtained. Chi–square with odds ratios (ORs), 1-way analysis of variance, and logistic regression were performed to establish significant differences between groups. Results Seventy–nine patients were included, 49 received chemoprophylaxis within 24 hours and 20 within 24–72 hours. Cohort characteristics included an average age of 51.8 years, 77.2% male, 62.0% cervical, and 35.4% thoracic SCIs. Using the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS), 39.2% were AIS-A injuries, 19.0% AIS-B, 25.3% AIS-C, and 16.5% AIS-D. Unfractionated heparin was administered in 88.6% of patients and 11.4% received low molecular weight heparin. Chemoprophylaxis within 24 hours of surgery was associated with a lower rate of VTE (6.1% vs. 35.0%; OR, 0.121; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.027–0.535) and deep vein thrombosis (4.1% vs. 30.0%; OR, 0.099; 95% CI, 0.018–0.548) versus 24–72 hours. Pulmonary embolism rates were not significantly different (6.1% vs. 5.0%, p = 1.0). There were no postoperative bleeding complications and no significant difference in drain output between cohorts. Conclusion Early VTE chemoprophylaxis is effective with lower VTE rates when initiated within 24 hours of surgery for SCI and is safe with no observed postoperative bleeding complications.

Compared with 12 months earlier, 206 patients (32.7%) said they found their current health to be "much better", 209 patients (33.1%) felt "somewhat better", 123 patients (19.5%) felt "about the same", 75 patients (11.9%) felt "somewhat worse", and 18 patients (2.9%) felt "much worse." Predictors of poor postoperative patient satisfaction in patients unde... Background A significant number of patients who undergo spine surgery have pre-existing compensation claims. The feasibility of a multidisciplinary transitional pain service in pa... Background Patients who undergo spine surgery have high rates of perioperative opioid consumption compared with patients undergoing other types of surgery, and unfortunately many opioid-naive patients going into spine surgery remain on opioids long term. Spine surgery in patients with morbid obesity: tips and tricks Background Patients with obesity are becoming more prevalent in our society, and spine surgery in patients with morbid obesity presents a challenge in several aspects. Background Cobb angle measurement is a standard method for quantification of scoliosis in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). [Extracted from the article]